>>> Terrorism Coverage: The Good, the
Bad and the Ugly. For a compilation of all the MRC's analysis of media
coverage since September 11, check out the MRC's Web page which lists,
in date order and by "hot topic" area, all the CyberAlert items,
Media Reality Check reports and columns by MRC President L. Brent Bozell.
Plus, our special edition of Notable Quotables. Go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/terrorism/welcome.asp

Now
that the United States has had a taste of terrorism, which has afflicted
Israel for decades, you'd think no one the U.S. media would describe
killing a terrorist as "murder" and would cease employing
derivatives of "cycle of violence," which morally equates the
actions of terrorists and their victims. But on Wednesday night, NBC's
Tom Brokaw did just that in reporting on the assassination by terrorists
of an Israeli cabinet minister.

Brokaw referred to the perpetrators as
"militants" and relayed their claim that it was payback for
"Israel's recent murder of one of their leaders," before he
lamented how the incident could escalate "the cycle of revenge."
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which Israel believes
is behind recent deadly car bombings, claimed responsibility for killing
Rehavam Zeevi, though Brokaw mentioned neither the group nor the
minister's name in his short item.

Brokaw announced on the October 17 NBC Nightly
News: "Whatever hopes the United States has about peace in the Middle
East are a good deal dimmer tonight. Israel's tourism minister was
assassinated today by Palestinian militants. Revenge, they say, for
Israel's recent murder of one of their leaders. The fear now: that the
cycle of revenge will only escalate in that part of the world."

Let's hope Brokaw does not describe the
killing of Osama bin Laden as a "murder" which will "fuel
the cycle of revenge."

Rationalizing
terrorism and dismissing the "freedom" espoused by the U.S. as,
"like beauty, a perception that lies in the eye of the
beholder." In a piece for CBS's Sunday Morning this past weekend,
MRC analyst Brian Boyd noticed, reporter Allan Pizzey argued despair
reasonably fuels terrorism: "If you were born into grinding poverty
where upward mobility isn't even a dream and have little to sustain you in
life beyond religion, you too might find yourself screaming for the new
Messiah with a $5 million price on his head."

Pizzey explained in his October 14 report:
"To Western ears calls for blood soaked martyrdom are an alien
concept, but consider the way things are for millions of Muslims of all
ages. If you were born into grinding poverty where upward mobility isn't
even a dream and have little to sustain you in life beyond religion, you
too might find yourself screaming for the new Messiah with a $5 million
price on his head. Osama bin Laden's simple view that Muslims are the
innocent victims of Western infidels might well seem a clarion call to
fight to a death that leads to paradise."

Pizzey also contended: "Every where you
go in the world you will hear some version of the words 'we are a freedom
loving people,' but like beauty, freedom is a perception that lies in the
eye of the beholder. And we ignore other nations' version at our peril.
The most dangerous perception of all may be that one's own side has an
exclusive claim to either the truth or patriotism."

Not everyone may believe our version of
"the truth," but that makes it no less accurate.

Peter
Jennings making up for feeling guilty about his show's derogatory attack
last week on President Bush's suggestion that kids donate one dollar
each to help children in Afghanistan? On last Friday's World News
Tonight, Michele Norris saw a nefarious side: "Behind the scenes
there are quiet grumblings about this dollar drive. There are concerns
that American children are being used in a propaganda campaign."

But on Tuesday night, Jennings himself aided
in the "propaganda campaign" as he ended his broadcast with a
cheery item about the enthusiastic reaction from kids to Bush's request.
Over video of Bush at the Red Cross headquarters accepting dollars from
kids, Jennings concluded the October 16 World News Tonight, as taken down
by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth:
"Finally,
this evening, just a glimpse of motivation. The White House said today in
response to the President's suggestion that American children send a
dollar to help the children of Afghanistan, it has had 90,000 responses so
far. And today when the President met some of the children, there were
more dollars on offer, which the President, we are told, duly handed over
to the head of the Red Cross. Now, we've heard many ways in which the
children have raised money. We actually liked this one today from
eleven-year-old Kristen Strickland of Virginia."
Kristen
Strickland: "When I heard the President was collecting money for the
Afghanistan children, I wanted to help. So my brother Daniel said that I
could feed his chickens and collect his eggs. I hope the money I have
earned will help a child in Afghanistan to have a better life."
Jennings:
"Apparently, she raised $45."

It's fortunate
for the starving kids in Afghanistan that few U.S. kids watch World News
Tonight.

If CNN
existed in the 1940s would it have given air time to Adolph Hitler or
Emperor Hirohito? CBS and NBC never did at the time, but now CNN has
offered its network to Osama bin Laden by posing six questions to him in
writing via the Al Jazeera network. CNN promised to only air his answers
if they are "newsworthy," though it's hard to believe they
would ignore his reply.

Wolf Blitzer announced the questions on
Tuesday afternoon during the 5pm EDT hour on CNN. His prefacing remarks
closely followed, if they were not identical to, language now up on the
CNN Web site: "Someone claiming to represent al Qaeda has asked Al
Jazeera and CNN to submit written questions for Osama bin Laden --
questions they say bin Laden will answer on videotape and send back to Al
Jazeera. This proposal came in to Al Jazeera, which then notified CNN.
"CNN has
some questions we would like to put to Osama bin Laden, but first we want
to be absolutely clear about this process:
"-- We
want to stress that CNN has no information about where bin Laden is or
whether he is alive or dead.
"-- We do
not know how al Qaeda communicates with Al Jazeera or how Al Jazeera plans
to get the questions to bin Laden.
"-- We
agree to no prohibitions or preconditions from Osama bin Laden's
organization or from the Al Jazeera television channel.
"-- By
submitting our questions, we are making no commitment to air bin Laden's
response. We will look at the tape, if there is a tape, and decide how
much or how little to run. If we believe his comments are not newsworthy,
we will not run any of them.
"-- We
claim no exclusivity over this tape, and we will allow other news
organizations to make their own judgments on how to use bin Laden's
answers."

CNN's six questions:

"1. Your spokesman has praised the
September 11 terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent people
and threatened to carry out more attacks involving planes and tall
buildings. How can you and your followers advocate the killing of innocent
people?
"2. What was your role and the role of the
al Qaeda organization in the September 11 attacks?
"3. What
was your role and the role of your organization in the subsequent anthrax
attacks in the United States?
"4. Did
any of the September 11 hijackers or their accomplices receive al Qaeda
financial support or training at al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and was
any other government or organization involved?
"5. In
the past, you called on your followers to acquire weapons of mass
destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Do you or your
followers have any such weapons and, if so, will those weapons be used?
"6. The
vast majority of Muslim and Arab leaders, including Muslim clerics and
Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, say there is no justification
in Islam for the terrorist attacks you advocate. They have denounced you,
your followers, and your self-declared holy war. How do you respond to
their criticism?"

The Web site story, which matches the language
employed by CNN on-air staff on Tuesday, concluded: "We have no idea
if bin Laden will answer these questions, and we intend to run only what
we think is newsworthy. We will report back to you as this process
unfolds."

In reaction to CNN's gambit to give air time
to an enemy with whom the U.S. is at war, MRC President L. Brent Bozell on
Wednesday released his own six questions to CNN formulated with input from
the MRC's Liz Swasey and Rich Noyes. Bozell suggested: "One
finds it absurd to believe that if CNN existed 60 years ago it would give
an audience to Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito who ordered the attack on
Pearl Harbor. This is truly outrageous, it is harming the war effort and
it's a slap in the face to the American people."

Bozell's six questions for CNN:

"-- Knowing that terrorists thrive on
media exposure to spread their propaganda, and that the interview was
instigated by al Qaeda, why would you allow your international network to
be used by a wanted terrorist and known killer?
"-- Have
you sought assurances from the government of the United States that this
endeavor will not in any way jeopardize the war against terrorism or cause
further loss of life?
"-- Given
that bin Laden is a liar - he first denied having anything to do with
the terrorist attacks on the U.S. -- why do you think he will be honest
with CNN?
"-- Will
you independently verify bin Laden's statements before you put them on the
air?
"-- If
CNN had existed 60 years ago, would it have interviewed and aired comments
from Emperor Hirohito, the man who ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor?
"-- If
CNN had existed 60 years ago, would it have given a forum to Adolf Hitler
to explain his hatred of Jews and Christians?"

Those in
Pakistan who hate the U.S. are best described as "the religious
right"? That's the political term MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield
applied in reporting on the strike called to protest Secretary of State
Colin Powell's visit.

Just because they may have a more extreme
interpretation of the Koran does not put them on the political
"right" and if the media consider dictators like Pakistan's
Musharraf to be right-wing, how can those so fundamentally opposed to him
also be right-wing?

At about 10:35pm EDT on Monday night, October
15, Banfield checked in: "Here in Islamabad, here in Pakistan, it was
a national day of strike as called for by the religious right in this
country. It was to mark Colin Powell's visit here, but it was also to
protest this President, Pervez Musharraf's support of America's
foreign policy, vis-a-vis the strikes in Afghanistan. The trouble is not
everybody felt the same way as the religious right had hoped they would.
Not everybody closed their shops. In some cities closer to the borders
with Afghanistan, which have extremely fundamentalist populations, there
were widespread strikes. But in other centers there were not, and where
that happened, many took to the streets to try to bully those shop owner
to close, and in some cases, in many cases, it worked."

Another example of how to the media anyone on
the bad side is labeled as right-wing.

Dan
Rather revealed in Texas Monthly that to stay alert during his long hours
on the air after September 11, he relied "on something I call 'zoom
juice,' a heavy protein mixture that's whipped up in a blender." He
also recalled that the morning after the first night he went home and read
the Bible.

Rather repeated his assertion that "in
the first stages of this national emergency, I was willing and in some
ways am still willing to give more of a
pass to the official government spokesmen than one would otherwise
do," but, he emphasized, "Those of us in journalism have to
remind ourselves that part of patriotism is continuing to ask the tough
questions."

Rather's recollections and comments appear a
first-person account published in the November Texas Monthly, an article
highlighted by Jim Romenesko on his MediaNews page: http://www.poynter.org/medianews

An excerpt from the Texas Monthly account by
Rather:

....I knew from going through long periods on the air before --
following the Challenger explosion, for instance -- that this wasn't going
to be one day but day after day. Early on I remember saying to myself,
"You have to pace yourself." Keeping your energy up is not hard
in a situation like this, but I did rely on something I call "zoom
juice," a heavy protein mixture that's whipped up in a blender.
Frankly I don't know what's in the damn stuff -- someone on my staff makes
it -- but it's good for a few reasons: It gives you a burst of energy, you
can gulp it down quickly, and it's liquid, so you're not chewing when you
come back on the air.

That first day, I got home at five-fifteen in the morning. I know from
past experience that you can't just have a glass of milk and go to bed.
There's always a long glide down. This time, there was no glide down. My
head was so full. I had to be back at the office at nine the next morning.
I tried to read for a while, something completely
different. I read the Bible. Frequently that will take my mind off things.
It didn't. Then I picked up whatever I could find. I tried to read Richard
Reeves's new book about Richard Nixon. I got through three sentences. I
ate, paced, tried to sleep. Sleep wouldn't come....

The line dividing what's appropriate for a journalist or any of us to
say moves from time to time. I'm not sure I could defend this in a
post-graduate seminar, but in the first stages of this national emergency,
I was willing and in some ways am still willing to give more of a pass to
the official government spokesmen than one would otherwise do. As time
goes on, we're still in a national emergency, and we stretch out for the
long haul -- but it's more important than ever that you stand up, look
them in the eye, and ask the toughest question you can think of. That's my
definition of patriotism in these circumstances. It can get uncomfortable.
You have to face the furnace and take the heat. Nobody does it with
perfection, but you keep telling yourself, "This is what I have to
do." I'm aware of what went on in Texas City and other towns and
cities when journalists wrote stories or editorials critical of the
president and got hate mail or were officially reprimanded. I'm here to
argue that that's not in the American tradition. We're all taught a saying
no later than the seventh grade: "I disagree with what you say, but I
defend to the death your right to say it."

That's the larger point to be taken from all this. Those of us in
journalism have to remind ourselves that part of patriotism is continuing
to ask the tough questions. I've never subscribed to the idea that
journalists should be cynical, but they should be skeptical. There's a
great and important difference between cynicism and skepticism. As they
say, "You trust your mother, but you cut the cards."

If Dan Rather won't really even trust his
mother, I guess Don Rumsfeld shouldn't feel so bad when Rather casts
doubts upon his statements. -- Brent Baker

Sign up for
CyberAlerts:
Keep track of the latest instances of media bias and alerts to stories the major media are ignoring. Sign up to receive
CyberAlerts via e-mail.

Subscribe!

Enter your email to join MRC CyberAlert today!

questions and comments about
CyberAlert
subscription

You can also learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to:
http://www.mrc.org/newsletters

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.